> -----邮件原件----- > 发件人: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:[email protected]] > 发送时间: 2012年9月22日 11:23 > 收件人: Xuxiaohu > 抄送: Yakov Rekhter; [email protected] > 主题: Re: [nvo3] unified encapsulation headers for both Layer2 and Layer3 VPN > overlays? > > Hi Xiaohu, > > On Sep 21, 2012, at 19:15, Xuxiaohu <[email protected]> wrote: > ... > > > Hi Kireeti, > > > > From a technical point of view, if the VXLAN and other similarities > > continue to > rely on multicast trees to emulate broadcast domains, rather than resorting to > a control plane protocol (e.g., BGP or ISIS) > > Well, the draft in question is trying to change that. > > > to realize VN membership auto-discovery , the globally significant VN ID > > (e.g., > VXLAN ID) on the data plane is absolutely necessary. > > Actually not. The management plane that programs the VNID could (in principle) > use a different value per NVE. But practically, yes. > > > Otherwise (if they use a control plane protocol for VN membership > auto-discovery), the globally significant VN ID on the data plane seems not > much necessary anymore since the locally significant VN context ID (e.g., MPLS > label) can be signaled as well by using the same control plane protocol. > > Agreed. The benefit of each NVE doing the VNID allocation is that it can > optimize for receipt and lookup. MPLS got a few things right, but this isn't > always widely recognized.
Hi Kireeti, As a Ambassador of MPLS, you could actually help more people to recognize that benefit more comprehensively if you are available. Best regards, Xiaohu > Kireeti > > > Best regards, > > Xiaohu _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
